ML19249B206
| ML19249B206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000470 |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Scherer A ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909040090 | |
| Download: ML19249B206 (2) | |
Text
S hk pa arc 4
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
we
, E C
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%... 4(J' JUL a 51979 Mr.
A.
E.
Scherer, Licensing Manager Combustion Engineering, Incorporated 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Dear Mr. Scherer:
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR DOCKETING THE CESSAR-FSAR By letter dated June 29, 1979, you tendered Amendment 3 to the CESSAR-F for docketing considerations.
Your letter also con-tained an enclosure with commitments to the effect that some of the information required for docketing would be submitted at some future date.
As you know, our letter to you dated March 23, 1979 identified the information we required to docket the CESSAR-F.
We continue to require that all the information so identified be submitted before we docket the CESSAR-F.
Since Amendment 3 does not contain all the information stipulated in our March 23 letter, we are not prepared to docket or to initiate our radiological safety review of the CESSAR-F.
In addition, so as not re impact future OL applications referencing the CESSAR-F, (e.g.,
Palo Verde),
we suggest that all the required information be submitted on a timely basis.
To reiterate, before we docket the CESSAR-F, C-E must subait all the information required for docketing as stipulated in our March 23 letter.
Commitments to' provide such information at some future date are not acceptable.
Our concerns regarding commitments can best be illustrated by calling your attention to the following sequence o f events.
On April 28, 1975, C-E submitted Amendment 27 to the CESSAR PSAR.
This amendment included commitments to the effect that topical reports describing the analysis methods used to evaluate the consequences of feedline and steamline breaks would be submitted by December 1976 and June 1973, respectively.
We issued Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-75/112 related to our review of the preliminary design of the CESSAR System 30 in December 1975.
NUREG-75/112 contains statements to the effect that we found the aforementioned commitments acceptable because we expected to com-plete our reviews of the topical reports on a schedule that would allow C-E to revise the analyses and modify the design of the System 30, if necessary, in the CESSAR-F.
At the time of our March 23 letter, however, these reports had not been submitted; therefore, in conformance with our findings in NUREG-75/ll2, we designated these reports as being required for docketing in our March 23 letter.
However, rather than providing the required o.,.,....
LA N t1 4 79090406),9C)
G
e A.
E.
Scherer JUL 0 51979 information in Amendment 3 to the CESSAR-F, the enclosure to your June 29, 1979 letter contains the following statement:
a later amendment will include an appendix to Chapter 15 of the CESSAR-F discussing analysis methods used to evaluate the consequences of potential steamline and feedline break accidents.
The appendix will be supplied within four months after the docketing to CESSAR-F."
(sic).
As you know, the TMI-2 accident has caused us to make some temporary, though very extensive, personnel assignment changes throughout the NRC.
Consequently, there is virtually no assurance that previous CESSAR reviewers will be assigned to review the CESSAR-F.
Thus, in light of the impact caused by the TMI *. accident, as well as our previous statements, we believe that C-E should make every effort to improve the quality of the CESSAR-F.
Such effort could include the developing of as much useful information as possible, irrespective of whether said information is required for docketing, (e.g.,
com-pieting and updating topical reports referenced in the CESSAR-F, general editing, responding to outstanding questions).
I should mention that the staff is investigating all possible means of getting our licensing reviews back on schedule.
Towards this end, I urge you to consider all the suggestions in this letter and to provide us with the date by which you will submit complete responses to all the outstanding items required for docketing.
Such actions on your part would enhance the staff's ability to both schedule and conduct an efficient safety review of the CESSAR-F.
If you need any clarification of the matters discussed in this letter, please feel free to contact Mr.
I.
Villaiva, the staff's assigned licensing project manager for the CESSAR-F.
Mr. Villaiva may be reached on (301) 492-7745.
I Sin
- rely, c.
- [h fHarold R.
Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation sp>4 n.--
., U. A. \\, ib